Should Hillary pull a McCaskill?

[Lyin' Steve]

It's tough to say which Hillary would rather see -- an eminently beatable Trump guaranteed the nomination, so she can pick her VP early, have a big glitzy convention and beat him as planned, or see Trump falter and the GOP convention thrown into absolute chaos.  Either way, she can help out by running ads hitting Trump or Cruz.  Whichever one she picks to help out, getting attacked by her will produce a rally-round-the-flag effect to help that candidate, and she can attack him for things like wanting to "slash taxes way too much" or some other he's-just-too-damn-conservative style attack.

(for those who don't get the reference, McCaskill did exactly this to make sure she got to run against Todd Akin in 2012, helping him swing the primary 20 points in his favor, and we all remember how that worked out)

[Vosem]

Everyone would see through this at once. The strategy worked way too well for McCaskill to be repeatable. The Akin comparisons would be instantaneous.

[Lyin' Steve]

Everyone would see through this at once. The strategy worked way too well for McCaskill to be repeatable. The Akin comparisons would be instantaneous.

She's already attacking Trump.  Just be a tiny bit more clever about it so you don't hurt him with the GOP voters.  If she drowned Trump in attack ads and he started hitting back, the media would switch away from Cruz to the Trump-Clinton fight and GOP voters would all start backing Trump.

[BlueSwan]

The absolute best case scenario for Clinton is if Cruz steals the nomination from Trump at a chaotic convention that leaves the GOP in shambles. Not only if the party divided, but Cruz is also far more predictable and beatable than Trump, who is too much of a wildcard for comfort.

The absolute worst case scenario is a chaotic GOP convention that ends in a white knight candidate like Paul Ryan that somehow the GOP coalesce around.

Those two have something in common: the contested convention that Trump doesn't win. Given that, I'd say that Trump locking up the nomination early isn't all bad even if it won't lead to a tumultous convention.

[Orser67]

Those two have something in common: the contested convention that Trump doesn't win. Given that, I'd say that Trump locking up the nomination early isn't all bad even if it won't lead to a tumultous convention.

That pretty much leaves two middle scenarios: 1)the contested convention that Trump wins (probably on the first ballot w/a little help from unpledged delegates), and 2)the uncontested convention that Trump wins. I'm hoping for the former scenario. I actually think that the former scenario may have even more of a general election "floor" than a Cruz steal (since Trump is so unpredictable), and it's what I'm rooting for. Also, if Trump doesn't have the nom 100% locked up, he will presumably have less control over the convention.

[Figueira]

The McCaskill is pulling itself already, without Clinton's help.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

is it even remotely necessary? all of the possible republican candidates at this point are majorly terrible.

[Figueira]

is it even remotely necessary? all of the possible republican candidates at this point are majorly terrible.

The only potentially okay candidate is Kasich (who really isn't any better than Romney anyway, aside from the Ohio advantage) but any scenario that leads to Kasich getting the nomination would make him just as toxic as the other two.